Transcript Phil Goodwin Presentation

Moving People – Changing Expectations
London 2.10.2008
Challenges for Road Transport
Phil Goodwin
Professor of Transport Policy
Centre for Transport and Society, UWE Bristol
A caveat
Nothing in this presentation necessarily
reflects the thinking, policies, logic,
analysis, interpretation, conclusions,
recommendations or even footnotes of the
Committee on Climate Change or
Commission for Integrated Transport.
(Though it’s not far from what was said by the Royal Commission on
Environmental Pollution in 1994, and many Government statements,
both Conservative and Labour, since then)
The basic challenge
The British Government, having determined
that climate change is a real and present
danger requiring reduction in carbon
emissions, has not yet decided exactly what
contribution should be expected from
transport… and two opposing views are
developing.
All agree that transport is the
biggest sector …
… for which carbon dioxide emissions are
still increasing;
…where reducing carbon involves substantial
personal behavioural change;
…where that behavioural change has other
effects apart from reducing carbon;
…where worldwide application of our own
behaviour would be quite impossible…
So two views:
• ‘Transport is too complicated’ – let it
grow because that will be popular and/or
good for economy, let other sectors reduce
carbon more.
• ‘Transport is best placed to make an
extra contribution’ – with advantages to
congestion, fuel, economy, safety, health
and social inclusion.
What could be done?
• Reduce travel, go to nearer destinations, shift
mode to public transport, walking, cycling,
drive more slowly and carefully, use smaller
and/or more efficient cars, avoid congested
times and locations…
• Influenced by fares, taxes, pricing, restrictions,
planning, investment, quality of service,
speeds, priorities, market incentives,
regulation, education, smarter choices…
What does that remind you of?
We do not come blind to this new problem,
because we have been talking about the
same things for years, for different reasons.
Let’s look at why.
The image of desirable
transport has shifted, from
this...
To this...
CARS IN TOWNS
In the cities we moved
WHY?
Law of unstable systems
Any system operating close to maximum
capacity and with random variation
has poor service quality
and is unstable
and prone to catastrophic breakdowns when
there are small additional problems
Fundamental law of traffic
The more traffic there is
the slower it goes…
Speed
‘Traffic will inevitably
grow…’
So build more roads?
Traffic
BUT
The supply of road space cannot keep pace
with the unrestricted demand for it – for
financial, economic, planning, social and
environmental reasons
If supply cannot match demand – we must
manage demand to match supply
If supply cannot match demand, must
manage demand to match supply
•
•
•
•
•
Pedestrianisation, traffic calming, control
reallocation of road capacity
public transport, walking, cycling
land use planning
prices which reflect full costs including
congestion and environmental damage
• ‘soft’ measures – travel plans,
information…
Evidence from experience, not models
• Increases in road capacity induce traffic, and capacity
reduction reduces traffic
• Well planned pedestrianisation is commercially
successful
• Transport prices do change travel choices
• ‘Soft’ measures change individual behaviour
substantially
• Reductions in car use of the order of 20% are quite
common, and 100% car-free areas work.
Shift in the argument
From ‘if we can’t match supply to demand then we
will have to match demand to supply’
To ‘actually it’s a pretty good idea to reduce traffic
for reasons of social and economic efficiency’
(not ‘we will be forced to reduce car use to save the
planet’ but ‘the policies we should be doing
anyway to make better more efficient cities, will
also help save the planet’).
Conclusion
We should not throw away everything we
have learned about the traffic problem,
when we seek to tackle the problem of
climate change.